Quote from: boobyhasgameyo on October 23, 2007, 09:35:07 PM
Annnyhow here are my top 10 East Rankings


1.  Alfred
2.  Fisher / Salisbury in a toss up
3.  Fisher / Salisbury in a toss up
4.  RPI
5.  Wesley
6.  New Jersey
7.  Hobart
8.  Ithaca
9.  Cortland (not sold on Cortland) 
10.  Hartwick
 

I second these but would leave Salisbury as #2.

Current discussion at Fisher is when to have Senior Day. Two years ago it was Alfred and last year it was Springfield both losses - coincidence? It was scheduled for Alfred but the distraction for that game doesn't make sense and why tempt fate?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 15, 2007, 03:58:29 PM

Quote from: AUKaz00 on October 15, 2007, 09:18:02 AM
Just a little FYI for the E8PP community, the Alfred-Husson game appears to be starting at noon on Saterday instead of the 1 o'clock listed on D3football.com.

Thanks for the almost heads-up.

BTW, you can WATCH the Springfield/St. John Fisher game. It's our D3Cast game.

Pat,
 What happened to the Ithaca/Fisher archive? Is it still going to happen?

Quote from: K-Mack on October 15, 2007, 01:42:40 AM
One more small thing ...

Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 14, 2007, 11:40:56 PMNeutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.

Agree about Neutral sites, really only because of the travel aspect (people have trouble getting less-than-7-day-advance fares to the Stagg Bowl when flying is necessary) and because games on campus would probably draw better anyway.

Agree about people being generally prone to bias.

Rotating locations, as discussed earlier, was the previous system. I don't recall the reasons for the switch, if I even ever knew, but one thing that rotating locations could do is produce more unfairness. If we determined the East was the semifinal host this year no matter what, and an 8-2 East champ advanced, why exactly would they deserve a home game over a 10-0 (or 13-0 by then) North champ?

We could use the same seed caveat again to help there. But that doesn't explain how predeterming a site would produce the most fair outcome more than it wouldn't.

Also, influencing one season over something expected to produce fairness over multiple seasons ("gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years") doesn't match up.

Are you also saying it could increase the fan base because having a semifinal at home might draw in a significant number of people who hadn't followed the team up until then?

Are you still done? I'd kind of like to hear your answers, and clearly I have not yet dropped the subject.

Ok, since you asked:

Alright, I misunderstood the Handbook. It states that seedings are based on regional seeding criteria and then discusses the regional grouping. I understood this to mean the regions were seeded by the criteria rather then all the teams are first seeded, 32 teams selected and then regionally grouped. Not really clearly stated but I understand how it is meant now. My Bad (probably a result of my bias).

Nice to know we agree on the first two.

My problem with the 8-2 vs 10-0 is there isn't significant data to identify whether the 8-2 is better then the 10-0 if no common opponents are in one of the losses. What other then bias can say the 10-0 is better then the 8-2. I am sure if Alfred wins out, most will say that it is the East and say a Capital at 9-1 is still better. While it can be argued there is no real way to settle the issue. So why doesn't the 8-2 deserve a home game? Because we don't reward losers??? Are we really interested in absolutes? Let's go to a best of five series - oh wait, who gets home 3 games! (Sarcasm). Rotation is just as fair as guessing between regions. Maybe a decision after the region is decided would be better. My statement is that there isn't a fair way only various flawed ways and I prefer to remove bias and give everybody a shot.

The fan base comment stems from giving access to larger populations of these games. In the unfortunate case that Alfred wins out through the East region and had a home game, I would certainly attend and many fans in the region would do so. It is how you grow a product, give as many as you can access and hope the product sells itself. More fans, more money, more cross region games (maybe)

My answers, right or wrong.

Quote from: K-Mack on October 12, 2007, 01:44:21 PM

Even if committee members were sitting around reading the site to get their information, there are controls in place to limit how much influence is based on "opinion."

As far as the John Carroll question, I'm not sure I can really answer that. I think in '01 (maybe '00), Hardin-Simmons was moved to the North and played at Wittenberg.

So at the time, I thought moving teams to balance the brackets was going to become a common thing. But even in subsequent years when moves seemed both logical and likely, they haven't often happened.

I have a feeling I didn't really answer the question.

Been busy, all the posts on this have been fun to read. My last post on this is summed up by the above comments. Although there is a handbook, explicit statements describing the seeding between the regions is missing. I bow to K-Mack as an informed expert. That he can not answer some of the actions of the past seedings shows there is some latitude in the seeding process including moving teams from one region to another. My statement is where there is latitude, opinions come in to play. However, I could be wrong.

As far as the Div I seeding is concerned, I believe they have a much larger database to work from with the amount of regular season travel. Thanks for the information.

Neutral sites don't make sense. People are prone to biase. Random is worst. Rotating locations gives everyone a fair shake at least 2 out every four years. It could result in increasing fan base. Ok, I'm done.

Quote from: AUPepBand on October 14, 2007, 10:28:47 PM
Pep thinks SJF should send its jayvee squad to Springfield and then let them take on Utica at home Oct. 27....heck, give the Fisher starters three weeks rest in preparation for AU. 

Pep isn't so convinced that penalties can always be attributed to lack of discipline. One of the attributes of this team, in Pep's opinion, is the players are so motivated and eager (overzealous) to "make a play" that given wrong circumstances, they proceed anyway. If that's how one defines lack of discipline, then so be it. Pep thinks this Saxon team has so much heart that they'd much rather take a chance and make a hit than do nothing at all.

This talk about Fisher/Springfield is concerning, hope the Team isn't getting comfortable. The reason Sharp did so well in the first game last year was helped by the type of defense Fisher uses. Quick and reactive. That leaves backside lanes for cutbacks. Not sure of Sharp's condition but the defense better maintain it's discipline and close the backside. Offense should be able to score but the concentration on wide receivers and ignoring open tight ends will catch up to the offense if not this week then the Alfred game. Hope they get back to spreading it around to keep everyone involved and keep the defenses off balance.

Fisher needs to focus on Springfield. SC have to be sky high, this game can salvage this season for SC.

Quote from: JoseQViper on October 11, 2007, 07:59:22 AM
 

In the end, the people that complain about polls are the people that really don't deserve to be in the poll but don't realize it.

Not always, I argued all last year about SJFC poll placement and in the end, they proved me right. Sometimes it is hard for people to except change. Wick is a decent team but they need to understand that polls tend to reward great defenses over great offenses. In the playoffs, defenses tend to win games.

Quote from: repete on October 10, 2007, 06:58:04 PM
Right, John Carroll shouldn't affect this year's choices, but the point is it took a bunch of humans and not a coin flip or other random event to determine this.

The problem is that human beings are biased and while some of those decisions work out some do not. Look at the seeding for the East last year. And if you are trying to say that the East was weak then how did SJFC give Mt. Union it's toughest first game (Capital had two chances, the first chance was worst then SJFC). Trying to decide who is stronger based on no relevant data is guessing no matter who you are. I have no problem with the regional seedings at least there is a basis but seeding the regions against each other with no real data is no worst then a coin flip as it tends to keep the current status of things.

As for Mt. Union, they have proven themselves to be in a class of their own and I don't think it would matter where they played. Let them get out and see the country.

Quote from: repete on October 09, 2007, 06:28:47 PM

Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 09, 2007, 05:45:33 PM

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM

It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.

However, thanks for the information.

Well to a degree ... but it's worth noting that there are some regions that have not produced a Stagg champ for a long, long time.

I agree but does that mean we should penalize this year's seniors? Does one win in ten years set the standard for this penalty. Does Whitewater dominate Wesley on Wesley's home field? It is easy to say yes but not convincingly. No one knows for sure. It seems like it would be better to rotate the home field advantage to help mix things up.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 04:35:48 PM
Thanks for the question.  I understand the "bracket seeding" to occur once the brackets have been filled and the #1 seeds of each bracket are then "bracketed" at that time, e.g., South #1 hosting West #1 and North #1 hosting East #1, using the criteria stated in the handbook.

I will appreciate any corrections.

Thanks.

---

Thanks PA_Wesleyan!  +1 

So you are saying that although there are very few inter-region games, the number 1 seeds are ranked based on their schedule? I would think this should be explicitly spelled out in the handbook.

It would seem to me that if the inter-region schedule can not be increased due to expense then a rotating bracketing would be a better way since conference/region strengths vary year to year.

However, thanks for the information.

Quote from: Upstate on October 07, 2007, 02:59:09 PM
Kramer really needed that game, his play hasnt lived up to expectations and that game (hopefully) is just the thing needed to give him a boost for the stretch run.

It was nice to see him connect on those deep passes to Smith, before then his timing seemed to be off and was over/under throwing recievers....

Have to disagree with that statement, conditionally. Kramer has played very well during day games (70.7%, 13 TD to 3 Int & 14.5 yd/rec) and not so well during night games(52.6%, 3 TD to 2 Int & 12.3 yd/rec) . Not trying to offend Wick or UR defense but he did not see open receivers and threw poorly to those he did see. The defenses did not seem to be pressuring him into mistakes. I am chalking it up him having real problems with the lights at night games. He is going to dominate the rest of the way (no night games). Now if I could only be as confident that the defense is here to stay. We are going to need them at their best for both SC and AU.

I think the long ball was helped by B'port's preoccupation with Harmon and throwing on run situations. Harmon was blanketed all day. Might have been the article on him in the Rochester paper earlier in the week that helped him attract the defense's attention.

Quote from: Ralph Turner on October 07, 2007, 02:13:20 PM

Quote from: sjfcclimbing on October 07, 2007, 02:07:56 PM

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.

If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.

Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?

Page 12-14 from the 2007 NCAA D3 Football Championships Handbook answers these questions. 

The selection committee will use the primary (and secondary if necessary) selection criteria to determine those seeds.

I have read this handbook and, obviously, I am missing something. The sections you refence do show criteria for seeding within the regional brackets but do not indicate any criteria for the selection of which region faces which region if the same seeds emerge from the regional bracket and which would be the home team.

Quote from: Yanks 99 on October 07, 2007, 12:57:07 PM

You can use stats both ways.  553 yards passing.  Who cares how you get the yards?  Obviously the coach goes with what works for his team.  3.4 yards per carry...times 3 downs...wow...that gives you 10.2 yards...a first down. 

Not to take anything away from Wick but surprised that AU gave up over 600 yards at home. It will make it very tough for them to run the gaunlet at the end of their season - traveling.

Love football but 1.5 hours delay, downpour and 45 to 7 is really a test of a fan. Glad SJFC does not have any more night games, Kramer looked good.

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 05, 2007, 11:52:30 PM
Not sure what you mean by region to region distinction.

If you're asking how they seed the brackets against each other, it's basically a ranking of the No. 1 seeds in each bracket. The No. 1 and No. 2 top seeds' brackets get the home-field advantage if equal seeds advance to the semifinals.

Let me try an example, say by crazy coincidence all #1 seeds advance from the regional brackets. How is it decided which region will play which region and who would host the games?

Quote from: Pat Coleman on October 02, 2007, 07:55:47 AM
It's announced with the bracket on Selection Sunday.

Not trying to be difficult. I don't see anything in the handbook that defines the basis for the region to  region decision, how is it decided?

Quote from: boobyhasgameyo on October 03, 2007, 09:31:18 PM
Bona fide Booby Prediction Alert


Fisher - 34
Brockport - 14 

Defense performs better than in recent weeks, and PG is left thinking "wasn't that the same score as last week?"....Indeed it was PG indeed it was. 

Ithaca - A lot
Norwich - Not a lot

In these strange times in the E8 this is one of the few givens. 

Chris Sharpe - 35
Random non E8 team - 10

Sharpe will somehow find a way to hand off to himself and throw to himself vindicating a Hartwick poster in the process. 

Alfred -  42
Hartwick - 17

I really really believe this will be a blow out and that isn't being bitter over Fisher losing, I just don't see Hartwick as legit.  If Hartwick keeps this one within 14 then I will take Hartwick as for real but it just doesn't seem like it will be in the cards.

Utica - 35
Mt Ida - 21

Because when was the last time anybody gave a Utica prediction?

Fisher - 40
Brockport - 21  

Ithaca - 45
Norwich - 14

Alfred -  30
Hartwick - 14

Alfred and Hartwick are on a roll but Alfred is at home. We had receivers open last week that Kramer for some reason missed. Unless Hartwick has figured it out, Keeley will pick them apart.